Glass. 
Book 



malt " 1 " 







x'v 



\ 



Polygamous Marriages in Utah, 



SPEECH 



HON. JAMES G. BLAIR, 



OF MISSOURI, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 17, 1872. 



2 > --y 
. — 



The House having met for deba te as in Committee 
of the Whole on the state of the Union- 
Mr. BLAIR, of Missouri, said : 
Mr. Speaker: The bill introduced by me 
upon the subject of polygamy in Utah is in 
the words following : 

A bill to legalize polygamous marriages in the Ter- 
ritory of Utah, and to dismiss prosecutions in said 
Territory on account of such marriages. 
Ba it enacted by the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress 
assembled, That all marriages heretofore solemnized 
in the Territory of Utah, under and in accordance 
with the rules and regulations of the Church of 
Christ or Latter-Day Saints, and children born 
under such marriages, be, and the same are hereby, 
legalized. 

Sec. 2. That all prosecutions now pending in any 
of the courts of said Territory on account of such 
polygamous marriages be, and the same are hereby, 
dismissed; and the jurisdiction of said courts over 
such cases is hereby withdrawn; and it is hereby 
madethedutyof such courts to dismiss all such prose- 
cutions which have or which hereafter may be insti- 
tuted, by indictment or otherwise, in their courts, 
respectively. 

q fx. 3. That this act shall be in force from and 
after its passage. 

■ The legalization of polygamous marriages in 
Utah, and the offspring of such marriages, 
as will be seen, is the object of the bill. The 
subject is not only a perplexing one to solve, 
in consonance with the laws of the land and 
the prejudices of our people, but it is one of 
vast importance, not only to the citizens of 
the United States, but to those whom it more 
directly affects. We must recognize the mar- 
riages among the Mormon people as legal and 
in harmony with the principles of republican 
government, validate them, or else leave that 
people to be prosecuted, fined, and impris- 
oned in the penitentiary of Utah. Not until 
recently have they been brought face to face 
with the danger that surrounds them, and to 
I see the doom that awaits them. All of them 
I anw see that the very foundation of society in 
Utah is about to be broken up, and the most 
prions consequences visited upon that people. 
%& this difficulty grows out of a misunderstand- I, 



ing as to what constitutes marriage, I propose 
to .first treat of the 

INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. 

Mr. Speaker, marriage is said to be a natural 
contract, or a contract in a state of nature; a 
civil contract, and an ecclesiastical contract. 
For myself, I consider some of those character- 
istics unmeaning and as creating a distinction 
without a difference. Under all those expres- 
sions or characteristics it is but one and the 
same contract. The distinction between mar- 
riage as an institution or relation and the con- 
tract essential to entering into that institution 
or relation is entirely lost sight of; as also the 
distinction between the contract of marriage and 
the celebration or solemnization of the contract. 
They take the power that simply regulates the 
contract and the relation for the contract itself. 
Hence, where it is regulated by the civil power, 
it is called a civil contract ; by the ecclesiastical 
power, an ecclesiastical contract; and where 
neither of these exist, a contract under the 
law of nature. 

Sir, to suppose that marriage or the con- 
tract of marriage is the creature of either 
civil or ecclesiastical lav/ is to suppose that 
civil and ecclesiastical governments ante- 
date marriage. The institution of marriage 
was ordained by God; and the contract jo 
enter into that institution or relation arose 
necessarily in a state of nature, before civil or 
ecclesiastical law existed. No civil or eccle- 
siastical authority has the power to abolish 
marriage or the contract of marriage. To con- 
cede such power would but be to defeat the 
purposes of God in the creation of man. All 
either can do is to regulate them. Where 
civil law is in the ascendency, marriage and the 
contract of marriage are regulated by it;, if 
the ecclesiastical, by it. If the civil power be 
supreme it may confer the right to regulate 
it upon the church, 'and vice versa. 

Marriage being of divine origin, and the con- 
tract of marriage originating in a state of 
nature, we must go to the earliest and most 



ancient histories to learn what it is. Mr. 
Speaker, in a state of nature we find it monog- 
amous and polygamous ; under divine law we 
find it monogamous and polygamous. Upon 
almost every page of the old Bible we find 
polygamy written. Not only so, the Bible 
gives us marriage in a more detestable form 
by a hundred fold than in Utah. Utah has 
its polygamy; the Bible its polygamy and 
concubinage. By tradition, marriage in a 
state of nature has been polygamous, and con- 
tinues so to this day ; by the divine law we find 
it commencing with Lamech, thirty-eight hun- 
dred and seventy-five years before Christ; and 
conceding, for the sake of the argument, that 
it ceased in the days of the Apostles, it covered 
a space of thirty-nine hundred and twenty-five 
years, by the express approval of God. 

Now, Sir, I am prepared to submit a 
proposition to Christians and students of 
moral philosophy. "If it be true that moral 
principles never change, and that marriage is 
based on moral principle ; and it be true that 
polygamous marriages existed for thirty nine 
hundred and twenty-five years, or a less 
period, by the approval of God, is polygamy 
morally right, or wrong?" But polygamy 
traces itself further down than that. While 
we have no express account of it in the New 
Testament, it is equally true that we have no 
express prohibition of it therein. In this opin- 
ion lam not only sustained by many divines, 
but by the author of the New American Ency- 
clopedia. He says in volume thirteen, page 
485, in speaking of polygamy, " There are no 
positive injunctions in the Bible against the 
practice." 

Mr. Speaker, between 1853 and 1856, only 
sixteen to nineteen years ago, a number of 
ministers of the gospel, sent as missionaries 
to India, and belonging to the Baptist, Con- 
gregational, Episcopal, Methodist, and Pres- 
byterian churches, assembled in Calcutta in 
convention and declared that polygamous mar- 
riages were not contrary to divine law. (D. 
0. Allen on India, page 601.) 

Now, then, in view of these facts, who can 
dogmatically affirm that polygamy is contrary 
to the law of God ? And who, in view of these 
facts, can declare that marriage is the union 
of one man with only one woman in the holy 
estate of matrimony? I ignore from this dis- 
cussion polyandry, as it principally exists in 
Thibet. 

Mr. Speaker, think not that my ramble 
through the Bible and sacred history is simply 
to show polygamy not contrary to the law of 
God ; far from it. My object is to elucidate 
the subject of marriage, and to throw these 
facts before the minds of the members of this 
House that they may see that our law writers 
have not defined marriage at all ; in other 
words, that they have taken the "contract" 
of marriage for ''marriage" itself, and have 
also confounded the power that regulates the 
contract with the contract itself. Civil and 
ecclesiastical law regulates man, but does not 
create him. Civil and ecclesiastical law regu- 
lates marriage and marriage contract, but cre- 



ates neither. Marriage and the contract of 
marriage exist independent of either. 

THE LEX LOCI CONTRACTUS. ; 'J 

_ Mr. Speaker, our law writers upon mar- 
riage lay down the law to be that the lex loci, 
contractus — the law of the place where thoT 
contract is made — must determine the legality*-) 
of the marriage; and this rule applies as Well 
to nations where marriage is controlled by the 
ecclesiastical and civil law as the law of nature* 
By this just and reasonable rule this whole 
question might be settled, but for the exceptions 
made by some with reference to polygamy. 
Wheaton, our own American law writer, hov 
ever, in his Law of Nations, page 181, in trer 
ing of this subject, makes no exceptions. Af: 
stating the law to be that the lex loci contract 
must govern, he says : 

" Infinite confusion and mischief would ensne witofc 
respect tolegitimacy,succession. and other person 
and propriety rights, if the validity of the man ia . 
contract was not determined by the law of the place 
where it was made." 

That the exception does not obtain as to 
polygamy in the United States, see also 1 
Alabama, 826; 5 Humph., (Tennessee.) M 
10 Met., (Massachusetts,) 457; 23 Missouri, 
561; 30 Missouri, 72. And, by note on pate 
183 of Wheaton, it will be seen that Hon. 
Caleb Cushing, in giving his opinion as Att<i 
ney General of the United States, November 
4, 1854, was not prepared to subscribe to :he 
doctrine that polygamy is an exception to the 
general rule that the lex loci contractus mas 
govern marriage. He says, "perhaps" it i . 

It then clearly appearing, from sacred u;;2 
divine history, that marriage is the union of 
one man with one or more women in the hob 
estate of matrimony, and taking the law to b 
as laid down by Wheaton and the Alabair a 
Tennessee, and Missouri cases cited, that [he 
lex loci contractus must govern, whether it 
be the law of nature, civil, or ecclesiastical, 
we are bound to hold polygamous marriages 
legal and valid ; and hence polygamous mar- 
riages among the Mormons at the date of our 
treaty with Mexico, and since, are valid. 

LAW OF CONQUEST. 

Mr. Speaker, I now propose to notice the 
law of conquest, or acquisition, as governed 
by the law of nations, which I hold, aside- 
from the lex loci contractus, makes the polyg 
amous marriages among the Mormons valid. 
I lay down the law to be that when a 
whole nation is conquered, and its territory 
ceded to the conqueror, the laws of the con- 
quered nation remain intact, as well as its 
whole machinery of government, until they 
are changed, modified, or abolished by the 
conqueror ; and where a part of its territory 
with .the people thereon only are ceded, as 
in the case of Mexico to the United States, 
then that the laws and customs of the con- 
quered Government at the date of the treaty 
control the rights, privileges, and immunities 
of the people, and their relation to each otSei 
until the Government of the conqueror inter 
poses its laws. (Wheaton, Law of Nations,) 
54, 878 j 2 Merivale's English, Report^ 15G • 



3 



4 Modern English Reports, 222; 1 Jacob and 
Walker's English Reports, 27 : and note "A.") 

Then, sir, whether the laws of Mexico ex- 
pressly recognized polygamy, or whether they 
failed to prohibit it at the date of the treaty, 
is immaterial. In either case, the lav/ of na- 
» fcions governing conquest or acquisition makes 
the polygamous marriages of the Mormons at 
the 'date of the treaty with the United States 
legal and valid. To say that had the Mexican 
laws expressly recognized polygamy at the date 
of the treaty we would have been bound under 
the law of nations to recognize the polygamous 
marriages of that people then existing, and 
then to" say that we are not bound to recognize 
them because the laws of Mexico did not ex- 
pressly recognize them, is. in view of the fact 
that their polygamous marriages were known 
almost over the world at the time, but denying 
justice upon the sheerest technicality, and of 
which any lawyer would be ashamed to avail 
himself in the courts of our country. Shall 
the legislative and judicial departments of 
our Government do that which an honorable, 
high-minded practitioner at the bar would 
scorn to do? 

England, in dealing with her conquered prov- 
inces in India and elsewhere, does not only 
sustain me in the general principle of the law 
of nations, but as with reference to its special 
application to polygamy also. England at 
home is monogamous, while England abroad, 
as in India, is polygamous. Sir, conceding 
the law of nations to be as I have stated, 
then, outside of and uncontrolled by treaty 
stipulations this Government had the power 
and right one year after the date of the 
treaty with Mexico to have prohibited future 
polygamous marriages among the Mormons. 
It failed to do it ; but acquiesced in them 
until July 1, 1862, (and longer, as I will show,) 
and now is taking advantage of its own laches, 
of its own criminal neglect, to persecute or suf- 
fer that people to be persecuted and harassed. 

Mr. Speaker, our neglect to prohibit polyg- 
amy among that people for thirteen years 
amounts to a confirmation of it under the law 
of nations. In the absence of civil law the 
law of nature and ecclesiastical controls. Sup- 
pose that we were to cede that territory to 
England, and the Mormons should remain 
on it, and we, having recognized polygamy 
for thirteen years under the ecclesiastical law 
of the Mormons, would not the law of na- 
tions compel England to recognize existing 
marriages as legal and valid ? I assert most 
positively that it would, and have the exam- 
ple of England with her conquered and ceded 
provinces and the decisions of her courts 
already cited to sustain me. Shall England 
be more regardful of the obligations imposed 
upou her by the law of nations and public 
i policy than the United States, or shall Eng- 
land be more generous and indulgent to her 
polygamous citizens in India than the United 
States to her polygamous citizens in Utah? 

TWO REMARKABLE PHENOMENA. 

Mr. Speaker, I shall now proceed to another 
i point in the line of my argument. The treaty 



I to which I have referred, between the United 
j States and Mexico, was signed at Guadalupe 
| Hidalgo, February 2, 1818. By the provisions 
of that treaty the Mexicans upon the ceded 
.territory had one year from its date to elect 
to continue citizens of Mexico; and in case of 
a failure to do so they then became citizens 
jj of the United States. As stated, the United 
States passed no law interfering with polygamy 
until July 1 1802 ; and that was against 
bigamy simply, without defining it. 

Now, then, I wish to call the attention of 
gentlemen upon this floor to two remarkable 
phenomena in the history and legal jurispru- 
dence of our Government. 

Sir, what law controlled marriages in Utah 
from the date of the treaty up to one year 
next thereafter, the time when the people 
became citizens of the United States Gov- 
ernment? Was it the law of Mexico or the 
United States, or was it the law of nature or 
ecclesiastical? 

From one year after the date of the treaty 
up to July 1, 1862, did the civil law of the 
United States, the ecclesiastical, or law of 
nature control marriages in Utah? 

When these questions are answered, it seems 
to me that the minds of gentlemen will not be 
free from doubt as to the propriety of the 
present, policy pursued toward the Mormons. 

From the date of the treaty to the expiration 
of one year thereafter they must be regarded 
as in a transition state, and without civil law. 
From one year after the date of the treaty to 
July 1, 1862, they must be regarded as without 
any law upon the subject of marriage other 
than their own ecclesiastical law. 

If the ecclesiastical law of the Mormons did 
not control marriages from the date of the 
treaty to the expiration of one year thereaf- 
ter, then monogamous marriages during that 
period were invalid ; as also from the expira- 
tion of the one year next after the treaty up 
to July 1, 1862, and in fact to the present day, 
for none but ecclesiastical marriages have 
been celebrated among the Mormons. 

If we have to trace monogamous marriages 
during those periods to the ecclesiastical law 
for validity, why not polygamous? If the 
monogamous are not valid, then we should 
validate them, and if we validate them, why 
not, while we are at it, validate the polyga- 
mous? 

LAW OP NATURE. 

But, Mr. Speaker, if gentlemen, to escape 
ecclesiastical marriages, prefer the law of 

j nature, then I respectfully refer them to the 

j decisions of the supreme courts of Alabama, 
Tennessee, and Missouri, declaring marriages 
among the Indians, under the law of nature, 
valid. (11 Alabama, 826 ; 5 Humph., (Tennes- 
see,) 13; 23 Missouri, 561; 30 Missouri, 72.) 
That the marriages under the law of nature 

j among the Indians and others have been and 
are polygamous there can be no question; and 
that the tribes to which the Indians belonged 
involved in the decisions of the supreme courts 
of Alabama, Tennessee, and Missouri, allowed 

• marriages in their character, polygamous, is 



4 



those c ^ by history and the facts developed in 
ry} 'cases. 

Mme savages are a law unto themselves. The 
mormons, as to marriage, have been a law 
unto themselves. If the marriages under the 
law of nature among the savages are regarded 
as legal and valid by our courts, why not treat 
the marriages under the law of nature among 
the Mormons with like impartiality ? Whether, 
then, regarded as marriages under the law of 
nature, or the ecclesiastical or law of con- 
quest, or the lex loci contractus, they must be 
held to be legal and valid. 

TREATY WITH MEXICO. 

Mr. Speaker, there is another point in con- 
nection with this subject which I shall now 
notice, and which, aside from every other con- 
sideration, in my opinion, settles this whole 
matter forever. 

In section one, article nine, of our treaty with 
Mexico, we expressly stipulated that the people 
upon the ceded territory should be " protected 
in the free enjoyment of their liberty and prop- 
erty, and secured in the free exercise of their 
religion without restriction." (United States 
Statutes-at-Large, page 930.) 

The treaty says that the Mormons shall be 
secure in the free exercise of " their religion." 
I emphasize the expression " their religion ;" 
and not only that, but that treaty says they 
shall be protected in the free exercise thereof 
" without restriction." 

The question for us to determine at this 
point is " what was the religion of the Mormons 
at the date of that treaty?" As applicable 
to religious denominations Webster defines re- 
ligion to be "any system of faith and worship ; 
as the religion of the Turks, of Hindoos, of 
Christians; true or false religion." The Mor- 
mon religion, at the time of the treaty, was sim- 
ply their system of faith and worship. What was 
that system, and by whom shall it be proven ? 
Is there any other way to prove it than by the 
system itself as published to the world, and by 
the statements and declarations of its leading 
men? 

Now, sir, let us take these, as is done with 
every other religious denomination, and what 
will be the result? Will it not as certainly 
lead to the establishment of polygamy as a 
part of the system of Mormon religion as 
that the Christian system will lead to faith in 
Christ? Christians accept Christ as their 
Prophet ; what he said is a part of their reli- 
gion. Mormons accept Joseph Smith as their 
prophet; what he said is a part of their reli- 
gion. Does not the system of Mormon religion 
clearly show that poiygamous marriages were 
revealed to Joseph Smith as their prophet, 
and that as their prophet he established it 
among them as a religious right? Were the 
whole Mormon brotherhood called to tes- 
tify, they would with one accord proclaim 
polygamy a part of their religion. By whom 
else shall it be proven? Shall we take a 
Jew to prove the Christian religion, a Cath- 
olic to prove the Protestant religion, or vice 
versa; a Methodist to prove the Presby- 
terian, or a Presbyterian to prove the Baptist 



religion, or vice versa f Would the members 
of those churches like to have their religion 
proven by their adversaries ? Would they sub- 
mit to it? Who ever heard of such a thing? 
Adopting the universal rule of allowing the 
members of a church to prove its faith by 
its published, writings and declarations of 
leading men, and polygamy is clearly estab- 
lished as a part of the Mormon religion. 
Mr. Speaker, do we not know as a matter of 
fact that the very reason why Mormonism 
has been so obnoxious to our people is be- 
cause that they make polygamy a part of 
their religion? I repeat, ''their religion," 
and would call the attention of the members 
of this House to the difference between the 
"Mormon religion" and the " Christian reli- 
gion;" and between a "true" and "false" 
religion. I am not here to prove what the 
Christian religion is ; nor am I here to prove 
that the Mormon religion is the Christian 
religion, or that the Mormon religion is a 
true or false religion. My inqui^ is, at lall 
I am proposing to show is, that polygans 
part of the Mormon system of religion. 

Now, then, sir, in connection with v these 
remarks I propose to read in full section 
article nine of the treaty between Mexico and 
the United States, (a part of which has already 
been noticed.) I quote : 

_ " Section 1. ThatMexicans who fail to eleettc 
tinue citizens of the Mexican Government shall bo 
incorporated into the Union, and be admitted 
proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the 
United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of 
citizens of the United States according to the prin- 
ciples of the Constitution; and in the ^meantime 
shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoy- 
ment of their liberty and property, and secured in 
the free exercise of their religion, without restric- 
tion." — United States Statutes-at-Large, page 030. 

Sir, is there a member of this House 
who is not in faith a Mormon, but will say 
at once that the Mormon religion is a false 
religion; that it is a delusion? Did not the 
men representing the United States and Mex- 
ico in signing that treaty believe the- same 
thing ; and did they not know when they signed 
it that, nil religious and non-religious people 
in the United States outside Mormondom 
had long previous thereto branded it as false? 
And yet, in the faca of that fact, they bound 
this Government by solemn* treaty obligation 
to secure to that people the free exercise 
of their religion. Whether Jew, Christian, 
Mohammedan, Pagan, Turk, Hindoo, or Swe- 
denborgian, true or false, we arc bound to pro- 
tect them in the free exercise thereof. 

POLYGAMY PROTECTED UNTIL ADMITTED AS A STATE- 

Mr. Speaker, the question now arises as 
when that protection ceases. Sir, with ■ 
section which I have read before me I unh " 
tatingly affirm that we are bound by that tr< 
to protect them until they are received into 
Union as a State. What means this langr 
in that section? 

"Shall be incorporated into the Union ar 
admitted at the proper time (to bo judged 
Congress) to the enjoyment of all rights," A.c. 

1. I hold "shr>l! be incorporated intt 



J 



5 



Union" must be held to mean that at the end 
of the year from the date of the treaty they 
were to become citizens of the Union or Uni- 
ted States. 

2. That the language "and be admitted at 
the proper time (to be judged of by Congress) 
to the enjoyment of all rights," &c, must be 
held to mean admission into the Union as a 
State. 

Now, sir, permit me to again call the atten- 
tion of the House to the latter part of that 
section and immediately following the portion 
already recited. It reads : 

"And in the mean time shall be maintained and 
protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and 
property and secured in the free exercise of their 
religion," &c. 

''And in the meantime." What time is 
meant? Is it not the time intervening between 
the time they should become citizens of the 
United States and the time when they should 
be admitted as a State into the Union? There 
Can be no other rational or intelligent inter- 
pretation of that section. 

Now, then, Mr. Speaker, permit me to read 
a portion of article six of the Constitution of 
the United States. I quote : 

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United 
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, 
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under 
the authority of the United States, shall be the 
supreme law of the land." 

If treaty obligations, constitutional provis- 
ions, and justice prevail, we can not, we dare 
not, lay a heavy hand upon polygamy until that 
people are admitted into this Union as a State, 
and when admitted, we are bound by the law 
of nations to hold it valid as to the past. The 
only escape from this is for the enemies of 
polygamy to maintain that polygamy is no part 
of the Mormon religion. 

But with all my prejudices against the ob- 
noxious system, and while I would strike it 
down at one blow, I must say that in my opin- 
ion we can as truthfully assert that the rev- 
elation to Noah about the flood ; to Abraham 
and Sarah that unto them a child should be 
born which should be the heir of a world ; to 
Zacharias that Elizabeth should bear a son 
to be called John ; to Mary that she should 
bear a son to be called Jesus; and the book 
of the New Testament, called revelations, are 
no part of the Christian religion, as to assert 
that the pretended revelations to Joseph Smith, 
the recognized prophet of that people, and the 
founder of their religion concerning polyga- 
mous marriages as contained in the Book of 
Covenants, which I hold in my hand, is no part 
of the system of the Mormon religion; as well 
contend that the book of Mormon is no part 
of their religion, as to assert that polygamy is 
no part thereof. 

Faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet of God 
is the rock upon which Mormonism stands. 
Accepting him by faith as a prophet, how can 
they do otherwise than accept the revelations 
of polygamy to him? If they accept them, 
do not they at once become a part of their 
religion? Sir, polygamy must then from the 
very nature of their system be held to be a 
part of the Mormon religion. But why argue 



the question further? Have we not for nea. 
thirty years been persecuting them because 
they do make it a part of their religion ? By 
our own act, then, we are estopped from saying 
it is not a part of their religion. 

Sir, if my position be correct, then it follows 
that the law against bigamy in the Territories, 
passed by Congress July 1, 1862, is inoperative 
as to polygamy among the Mormons ; nor can 
the territorial Legislature abolish it, no more 
than Congress, against the will of that people. 
By the treaty and the Constitution it stands 
above all law until Utah is admitted as a State. 

One other point upon the treaty: I contend 
that, regardless of the laws of Mexico in 
regard to polygamy, the treaty binds us to 
recognize it as existing at the date thereof. 
Both Governments, knowing at the time that 
polygamy existed among the Mormons, and 
not providing against it by treaty stipulations, 
must be presumed to acquiesce therein; and 
we are forever estopped from interfering with 
it until the time specified in the treaty. But 
I may be asked, why pass your bill if it be 
already legal? I answer, "to put the ques- 
tion beyond dispute," and to stop United 
States officers and judges who, alike ignoring 
plain treaty stipulations and disregarding the 
great key of legal interpretation, are guilty of 
proceedings in Utah unparalleled in the his- 
tory of criminal jurisprudence in prosecuting 
Mormons for polygamy, &c. , under laws passed 
by themselves, and which to them are harm- 
less, and with their view of polygamy, inap- 
plicable to them. 

Mr. Speaker, England, as remarked, at 
home is monogamous, while in ' i iia she is 
polygamous. Were she to atte ,.' so unrea- 
sonable, unnatural, unjust, and cruel an sict, s 3 
gross an outrage upon criminal jurisprudence, 
and the long-established rule of legal interpret- 
ation, as to enforce her law of bigamy, adul- 
tery, and lewd and lacivious conduct as appli- 
cable to single marriages in England, against 
polygamous marriages in India, she would 
bring down upon her head the condemnation 
of a civilized and Christian world. That 
which monarchical England would scorn to 
do is now being done and sought to lie done 
in republican America, in Utah, by United 
States officers and judges. 

BIGAMY DEFINED. 

Mr. Speaker, bigamy to a Government tol- 
erating monogamous marriages only is not 
bigamy to a Government allowing polygamous ; 
and I have been startled to hear eminent law- 
yers and jurists assert that bigamy and po- 
lygamy are synonomous. An expression so 
characteristic of carelessness of thought and 
mature reflection upon so important a subject 
is inexcusable and unpardonable. Bigamy is 
simply a marriage by one already married in 
excess of what the law permits. • 

The bigamy of England is not the bigamy of 
India ; the bigamy of our State and United 
States Governments, is not the bigamy of the 
Mormons. Nor is the bigamy of one polyg- 
amous government necessarily the bigamy of 
another polygamous government. For in- 



6 



cance, the Mormons recognize polygamous 
marriages as a religious rite, which must be 
celebrated according to the rules of their 
church. A plurality of marriages in Utah under 
civil law would be bigamy to the Mormons ; 
while in another polygamous government, 
allowing polygamous marriages by the civil law 
on\y, a plurality of marriages by the church or 
ecclesiastical law would be bigamous. Sir, if 
gentlemen would lay aside prejudice and be 
governed by principle they could not iall into 
such an error. My argument upon this point is 
equally applicable to adultery and what is 
termed '• lewdly and lasciviously associating 
and cohabiting together" under the territorial 
law of Utah. In England a man marrying a 
second wife, the first living, and undivorced. 
would be guilty of bigamy ; in India he would 
not be. And so in regard to adultery and 
lewd and lascivious conduct. In England, a 
man living with two women at the same time 
would be guilty of lewd and lascivious con- 
duct ; while in India he would not be, unless 
it were with others than his polygamous wives. 

RULE LEGAL INTERPRETATION. 

Mr. Speaker, the courts and officers of the 
United States in that Territory not. only refuse 
to see and recognize this plain and glaring 
distinction, but in their eagerness to "hunt 
down heresy" and willingness to cater to a 
morbid Gentile anti-Mormon feeling have 
ignored and trampled under foot one of the 
plainest and most prominent elementary prin- 
ciples of legal interpretation. 

Blackstone says : 

" The fairest and most rational method to inter- 
pret tbe will of the legislator is by exploring his 
intentions at the time ; I repeat, 4 at the time' when 
the law was made." 

Adopting this rule, can any one fail to see 
the iuterpreta ion which our courts must give 
to the laws of that Territory, passed by that 
polygamous people, and which, by an unnat- 
ural and unwarranted interpretation, are now 
being enforced against the Mormon people? 
Blackstone illustrates the principle on this 
wise. He says : 

"Thus when the law of our Edward III forbids 
nil ecclesiastical persons to purchase provisions at 
Home, it might seem to prohibit the buying of grain 
and other victuals; but when we consider that the 
statute was made to repress the usurpations of the 
papal see, and that the nominations to benificesby 
the Pope were called 'provisions,' we shall see that 
the restraint is intended to belaid upon such pro- 
visions only." — 1 Blackstone, 01. 

Now, sir, applying this most reasonable, 
natural, and just rule of interpretation to the 
territorial laws of Utah, and who cannot 
see that the adultery, lewd and lascivious 
conduct of our people and our laws is not the 
adultery, lewd and lascivious conduct of 
the Mormons or Mormon laws? That it is 
the correct rule of interpretation and appli- 
cable to the Mormon people see 2 Merivale, 
English Reports, 156. And yet a law passed 
by the Mormons themselves against what they 
consider adultery, and not what we consider 
adultery, and against what they consider lewd 
and lascivious conduct, and not what we con 
sider lewd and lascivious conduct, is to be per- 



verted, twisted, and tortured into an engine 
of persecution and oppression against them- 
selves. 

Sir, it is to stop such flagrant and pal- 
pable injustice, and so unparalleled an oat- 
rage, that my bill was introduced. Let it be 
enforced against Gentiles if they will, but 
against the Mormon people never, as long as 
that treaty is the supreme law of the land, or 
the rule of legal interpretation is adhered to. 

PUBLIC POLICY. 

But suppose that I am in error in regard to 
facts and the law as well as in my arguments 
and conclusions, and conceding that the Mor- 
mons are not protected by treaty, the law of 
Congress, of nations, or conquest, or of mar- 
riage, and then, sir, upon the ground of " pub- 
lic policy" do I appeal to members of this 
House to pass the bill. 

If the greater good will result from its pas- 
sage, and the greater evil from its non- passage, 
then, sir, public policy, as well as the best, 
interests of society, demands its passage, and 
it would be worse than criminal to refuse it. 

Mr. Speaker, do we refuse this, then prose- 
cutions against that people will be urged with 
all the bitterness of Gentile hatred? Men 
and women heretofore regarded as honorable, 
chaste, and virtuous will be changed into fel- 
ons and criminals. Men and women heretofore 
regarded as respectable will be treated with 
scorn and contempt. Young ladies and young 
gentlemen heretofore regarded as exemplars 
and ornaments in society and church are to 
be dishonored, degraded, branded as bastards, 
and turned loose upon society as monuments 
of the prejudice and folly of American states- 
manship. A land now blessed with peace, 
prosperity, and happiness is to be filled with 
lamentations and mournings, and not less 
than twenty-five thousand men and women 
sent to the penitentiary for living in a state 
of marriage which their church and system 
of religion have recognized as right in the 
sight of God for nearly thirty years. A hun- 
dred thousand men and women, husbands and 
wives, parents and children, to be dishonored 
and disgraced forever, and Utah turned into 
an American Botany bay. 

Where is there a man whose Irart responds 
to the cries of suffering humanity that would 
not revolt at even the contemplation of such a 
scene, much less its sad reality? Philanthro- 
pists, remember that that people are bone of 
your bone and flesh of your flesh. A common 
humanity forbids us bringing upon that people 
such a sad calamity. 

Christians, here is a work for you ; save that 
people from so much distress. Are you told 
that they are adulterers and adulteresses? 
Remember that your Lord and Master once 
said to such a character, who was about to be 
stoned to death, "Go; and sin no more." 

If he could show one, such lenity who was 
willfully guilty, what may you and I and others 
say to those who are innocently guilty, if guilty 
at all? Mr. Speaker, it is useless to portray 
the good to flow from the passage of the bill, 
or the evils resulting from its non-passage. 



7 



Tbey are apparent to all. The evils conse- 
quent upon its passage are not a tithe in com- 
parison to the good that will result therefrom. 

VETO OF GOVERNOR. 

Mr. Speaker, that people, knowing the prej- 
udices of our people against polygamy, passed 
a bill through their territorial Legislature a few 
weeks ago calling a convention to adopt a con- 
stitutio.n in harmony with our views of mar- 
riage, that they may apply for admittance into 
the Union as a State, and thus forever settle 
this vexed question ; but here again they are 
met by the veto of an over-scrupulous Gov- 
ernor, upon the ground that Congress has not 
passed a law authorizing it. Ignorant of the 
fact that the power that can authorize in ad- 
vance can ratify after the act i3 performed; 
and ignorant of the fact that eight States, 
to wit, Vermont, Tennessee, Maine, Arkansas, 
Michigan, Florida, Texas, and Iowa, were ad- 
mitted into the Union without enabling acts 
previously passed, he casts another obstacle 
in the way of settling the troubles in Utah. 

Sir, shall that people continue to be thus 
persecuted, or will this Congress pass this act 
and give them immediate relief? No mem- 
ber upon this floor has a constituency more 
strongly prejudiced against that people and 
polygamy than my own ; yet before I will suffer 
one hundred thousand men, women, and chil- 
dren to be turned into adulterers, adultresses, 
and bastards, 1 will take the responsibility to 
vote for the passage of the bill, and appeal to 
the magnanimity, generosity, and exalted sense 
of justice of my constituents for a vindication 
of my act. 

I believe that could the people of the Uni- 
ted States but be brought to see the subject in 
its true light, not a day would pass but their 
prayers, through petitions, would be heard in 
this Hall for the passage of this or a similar 
measure of validation and oblivion. 

RIGHT TO VALIDATE. 

Mr. Speaker, marriage being regulated by 
civil as well as ecclesiastical and natural law, 
there can be no impropriety in asking Congress 
to pass this bill, as it has unquestioned power 



to legislate over the Territories. That Con- 
gress may validate illegal and void marriages, 
I refer to the British Parliament. The most 
notable cases of which were legalizing the mar- 
riages celebrated before justices of the peace 
in England duringthe commonwealth ; also in 
India, Lower Canada, and Nova Scotia. (Shel- 
ford on Marriage, 45, 55, 61, 02;) also by the 
Legislature of Prince Edward Island, ( 1 bid. ? 
04 ;) also by Maine, 2 Maine, 28 ; also by Con- 
necticut, 4 Connecticut, 209. That the power 
is generally conceded (1 K., 10 Ed., 512.) 
That such acts are not retrospective or uncon- 
stitutional, (see 2 Peter, 880 ; 8 Peter, 88 ; 
10 Peter, 294; 11 Peter, 420; 10 Howard, 
395; 17 Howard, 450; 4 Wall, 172.), 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, permit me to 
read what David O. Allen, the celebrated 
| Christian missionary of twenty five years in 
India, has to say upon the subject of polyga- 
mous marriages in his book published as late 
as 1856. That devoted man of God says: 

"Supposing now that any Hindoo, or Moham- 
medan, or Jew who has several wives to whom ho 
has been legally married, should give evidence of 
piety.and wish to make a public profession of Chris- 
tianity, what shall be done in respect to his polyg- 
amy ? In contracting these marriages he violates 
no laws of the country and no laws of God, a3 he 
understood them, any more than Jacob or Elkanah 
did in marrying two wives, or than David did in 
marrying a yet larger number. 

"This man cannot divorce any of his wives, if he 
would; and it would be great injustice and cruelty 
to them and to their children if he should, lie cannot 
annul his legal obligations to provide for them. He 
is bound, morally and legally, to support them and 
| to protect them, while professing Hindoo, Moham- 
medan, or Jewish religion; and his having become 
a Christian, and embraced a purer faith, will not 
release him from these obligations, in view of the 
English Government and courts, or of the native 
population. Should he put them away, or all but 
one, they will still be legally his wives, and cannot 
be married to any other man. And further, they have 
done nothing to deserve such unkindness, cruelty, 
and disgrace at his hands." — Page 521. 

Mr. Speaker, if polygamy is contrary to 
Christian religion, and it be the only 
I religion, as we understand it, then p' 
peoples must be deprived of Gospel grace, or 
subjected to the results so graphically ; cured 
by Mr. Allen. I have done. 



Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 

/ 




LBMr-20 



1 



I 



